As a port operation project that was obtained through a normal market public bidding process and has undergone at least three political and security reviews without valid reasons over the past ten years, the Port of Darwin project operated by China's Landbridge Group has repeatedly become a "political football" in Australia and is under pressure to have its contract canceled and be forcibly reclaimed after this election. In response to this issue, Chinese Ambassador to Australia, Qian Xiao, recently stated in an interview with Chinese and Australian media that the Chinese side has consistently communicated with the Australian federal government and the Northern Territory government through diplomatic channels, considering it "inappropriate in terms of morality to lease out the port when it is losing money and reclaim it when it is profitable."

Looking back on the changes in the Port of Darwin over the past ten years, aside from mutually beneficial commercial operations, against the backdrop of the then federal government's "complete lack of intention to support this infrastructure development," the Landbridge Group can be seen as a "timely help" for the Port of Darwin and the Northern Territory. From helping turn around the port's operating performance, alleviating the Northern Territory government's debt crisis, to investing more than 83 million Australian dollars in maintaining and upgrading port facilities, resulting in a 95.7% increase in the total tonnage (GRT) of vessels arriving at the port, to actively fulfilling social responsibilities and making significant contributions to the local socio-economic development, the Landbridge Group has brought systematic and positive changes to the Port of Darwin. Former Chief Attorney of the Northern Territory, John Elferink, previously stated that when the federal government approved the transaction at that time, no security concerns were raised.

On April 8, 2025, Darwin, Australia, panoramic view of the entrance to the Port of Darwin.

It is well known that the Port of Darwin began to be associated with so-called "national security" and suffered various near-groundless political and security reviews due to Washington's concerns. However, multiple reviews by successive Australian governments have shown that there is no such thing as a "national security risk" for the Port of Darwin. The findings of the investigation in 2023 even concluded that "this lease does not need to be canceled or changed." Nevertheless, recent rumors of contract cancellation and abandonment are frequent, and even in election campaigns, it has been portrayed as a "consensus" across party lines, indicating that the current anti-China backlash in Australia still shows signs of resurgence. However, if the Australian government takes the step to forcibly reclaim the Port of Darwin, it will inevitably leave behind long-lasting problems in the following three areas.

The operation of the Port of Darwin by the Landbridge Group is a typical case of Chinese investment overseas conducted in accordance with laws and regulations. If the Australian government unilaterally tears up the agreement without proper legal basis, it would send a dangerous signal to global investors: the Australian government can arbitrarily interfere in commercial contracts for political purposes. This approach of "politics overriding the rule of law" will severely undermine foreign investors' confidence in the business environment in Australia, especially in large-scale projects requiring long-term investments, such as infrastructure and energy. Some people in Australia have hinted that they will ensure "the Chinese owner, Landbridge Group, receives good investment returns." This mindset of "just throwing some money can allow for arbitrary breach of contract" precisely proves that Australia feels guilty about the issue of reclaiming the lease. I wonder, how much money would Australia have to pay to recover the moral defect and lost spirit of contract in this event?

In recent years, Sino-Australian relations have experienced many ups and downs, one important reason being the excessive politicization and securitization of issues involving China by the Australian side when handling them. Recently, under the efforts of both sides with a pragmatic cooperative attitude, bilateral relations have generally returned to a stable track. If the Darwin Port incident is further politicized and the port is forcibly reclaimed under the pretext of "national security," it will become another negative case affecting the healthy and stable development of Sino-Australian relations. This will undoubtedly impact the currently stabilizing and improving bilateral relations, exacerbate opposition sentiments between the two peoples, and damage mutual trust between the governments and enterprises of the two countries.

Reclaiming the Darwin Port from the Landbridge Group will also symbolize the dangerous shift of the port from commercial cooperation to military development. In recent years, the United States has frequently upgraded its military deployments in Darwin, with regular rotations of marines, upgrades and expansions of military bases, attempting to make the Darwin region the forefront of the Indo-Pacific strategy. This "de-Chinese" operation is paving the way for U.S. military deployments in northern Australia. More importantly, once the functions of the port are partially or entirely converted for military use, the local economy will be held hostage by military strategy — normal port logistics activities will give way to military exercises, fleet replenishment, and strategic reserves, making it difficult for the local economy and industry to develop normally, and significantly reducing the sense of security among the populace.

The operation of the Darwin Port should be a market-driven economic activity and should operate within the framework of the rule of law and market rules. However, when the pressure from Washington overrides Australia's own interests and rules-based commercial activities are trampled by political logic, the damage is not only to Australia's own international reputation but also to the non-renewable soil of mutual trust and the strategic autonomy space that could refuse external military gamesmanship. We urge the Australian government to prioritize the overall situation, adhere to the spirit of contracts, return to the rule of law, and stop undermining economic cooperation out of political bias. Whether the Darwin Port becomes a cooperative port of cargo prosperity or a center of storms full of risks is not a difficult choice but a test of Canberra's strategic wisdom.

Source: Global Times

Editorial Process: U022

Original Article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7508904746326016550/

Disclaimer: The article represents the author's personal views. Please express your opinions by using the "like/dislike" buttons below.